Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

INA 135mm f/1.5 Telephoto - testshots.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:22 pm    Post subject: INA 135mm f/1.5 Telephoto - testshots. Reply with quote
About two weeks ago I had the luck to find and buy this lens.

It was produced from 1967 to 1970 and it was sold under a few names of which Vivitar was the most common.
Although I suppose that "common" is a relative term for a lens of which allegedly only a few hundred were produced.
Others names under which this lens was sold were, as far as I know: INA, Berolina and Carl Meyer.
All have a T2 mount except for the Carl Meyer, which had an M42-mount.

Mine came without the original hood but I use the hood of a Carl Zeiss Jena 180 f:2.8 Sonnar (which is the same as the Sonnar 300mm f/4 hood ).
It has serialnumber 1967109.

Thread about the Vivitar 135mm f/1.5: http://forum.mflenses.com/vivitar-135mm-f-1-5-t-mount-converted-to-nikon-ai-s-t27558.html

A few pictures of the lens itself:





Last edited by Lucse on Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:04 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I took some rudimentary testshots. Nothing scientific. Just to show it's potential.
First the total scene, all the rest are un-edited 100% JPEG crops.
The weather was dull and overcasted. I used a Sony A7II.

Full scene f/1.5 (resized, clickable):



100% crop at f/1.5:



100% crop at halfstop between f/1.5 and f/2:



100% crop at f/2:



100% crop at f/2.8:



100% crop at f/4:



And last a slightly edited version of the f/1.5-crop:


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Plenty usable to me, beside the weight, that's my personal deal-breaker in the last years (both my shoulders ruined by decades of heavy bags)...

Last edited by Ultrapix on Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:15 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1

I was always tempted, thanks that this is over for me now...


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nevermind.

Last edited by Lucse on Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:27 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ultrapix wrote:
Plenty usable to me, beside the weight, that's my personal deal-breaker in the last years (both my shoulders ruined by decades of heavy bags)...


That was also my conclusion. It's a 135mm F/1.5 !! after all. I don't know if you can expect pictures taken with such a lens to be a lot sharper. The contrast is not bad either.

But it is a fact that this lens is hardly usable in the real world because of the weight. I had taken three test-shots with it 'freehand' and I had to put the camera down to give my arm some relief.

If you use this lens wide-open it takes a long time to get the focus spot-on and all this time you have to hold up about 3 kg on one hand.
Not a lot of people are able to do that more then a few times in a row I reckon Wink.

OK, one can argue that a tripod can be used but this undermines the purpose of a 135mm lens according to me.
A lens with this focal length just has to be manageable freehand or it's fairly useless.

.... but it's still a nice lens though Smile.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great thread for a great lens ! Thank you ! May we ask what you paid for it ? You're sooo siiiilent about that ... Wink
I read this thread yesterday about the Noritar 1,4.
http://roll.sohu.com/20121207/n359746650.shtml
Even (much) heavier than the Vivitar but looks sharp enough WO too.
The author alleges that these 2 lenses were options presented to the NASA and the Vivitar won.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lucse wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
Plenty usable to me, beside the weight, that's my personal deal-breaker in the last years (both my shoulders ruined by decades of heavy bags)...


That was also my conclusion. It's a 135mm F/1.5 !! after all. I don't know if you can expect pictures taken with such a lens to be a lot sharper. The contrast is not bad either.

But it is a fact that this lens is hardly usable in the real world because of the weight. I had taken three test-shots with it 'freehand' and I had to put the camera down to give my arm some relief.

If you use this lens wide-open it takes a long time to get the focus spot-on and all this time you have to hold up about 3 kg on one hand.
Not a lot of people are able to do that more then a few times in a row I reckon Wink.

OK, one can argue that a tripod can be used but this undermines the purpose of a 135mm lens according to me.
A lens with this focal length just has to be manageable freehand or it's fairly useless.

.... but it's still a nice lens though Smile.



I also was tempted, like Klaus, but not any more. I have a Spiratone 135mm f1.8, which is not quite such a monster as that one, and somehow they managed to get the CA under control, even at f1.8. It also appears that the 1.5 gets pretty abysmal in the corners, is that true. Just for contrast, here is a FF shot with the Spiratone, slightly sharpened by no CA correction



#1


#2


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Exactly Toby! My PORST 1.8/135mm is pretty sufficient and still rather decent in corners! It has some CA of course on OOF areas...Not bad for a lens I paid EUR200 for in like new condition!

Here a few samples (most fully open), full album is here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums/72157696060561184









PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kymarto wrote:


I also was tempted, like Klaus, but not any more. I have a Spiratone 135mm f1.8, which is not quite such a monster as that one, and somehow they managed to get the CA under control, even at f1.8. It also appears that the 1.5 gets pretty abysmal in the corners, is that true. Just for contrast, here is a FF shot with the Spiratone, slightly sharpened by no CA correction




The first one is a superb shot but it's not really comparing-material of course (as the picture is edited, re-sized and taken with unknown aperture).

About the pictures taken with my 135mm /1.5: The corners are less sharp at widest aperture, of course, but I would not call them 'abysmal'. These pictures are not the best to judge this either as the hedge is curved.

I have two Sigma XQ Scalematic 135mm f/1.8 and a Kenlock 135mm f/1.8 (which is the same as a Spiratone Plura-Coat).
If I find the time I will make some true comparing-shots Wink. And I might invest some more effort into this then I did with the above test-shots Wink.
I could include the Soligor 135mm f/2 and the Canon FD 135mm f/2 in this as well maybe.

Last edited by Lucse on Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:24 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Exactly Toby! My PORST 1.8/135mm is pretty sufficient and still rather decent in corners! It has some CA of course on OOF areas...Not bad for a lens I paid EUR200 for in like new condition!



Judging the comments I should be happy that I payed even less for my INA Wink.

That first shot is magnificent BTW. The other three hardly can be called sharp according to me, not even at that small size.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Phalbert wrote:
Great thread for a great lens ! Thank you ! May we ask what you paid for it ? You're sooo siiiilent about that ... Wink
I read this thread yesterday about the Noritar 1,4.
http://roll.sohu.com/20121207/n359746650.shtml
Even (much) heavier than the Vivitar but looks sharp enough WO too.
The author alleges that these 2 lenses were options presented to the NASA and the Vivitar won.


Thanks for the link to that Noritar thread. Like 1


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lucse wrote:
kymarto wrote:


I also was tempted, like Klaus, but not any more. I have a Spiratone 135mm f1.8, which is not quite such a monster as that one, and somehow they managed to get the CA under control, even at f1.8. It also appears that the 1.5 gets pretty abysmal in the corners, is that true. Just for contrast, here is a FF shot with the Spiratone, slightly sharpened by no CA correction




The first one is a superb shot but it's not really comparing-material of course (as the picture is edited, re-sized and taken with unknown aperture).

The corners are less sharp at widest aperture, of course, but I would not call them 'abysmal'. These pictures are not the best to judge this either as the hedge is curved.

I have two Sigma XQ Scalematic 135mm f/1.8 and a Kenlock 135mm f/1.8 (which is the same as a Spiratone Plura-Coat).
If I find the time I will make some true comparing-shots Wink. And I might invest some more effort into this then I did with the above test-shots Wink.
I could include the Soligor 135mm f/2 and the Canon FD 135mm f/2 in this as well maybe.


They were taken wide open. Sorry I do not have the original images here. The lens is not particularly sharp, not even stopped down, but it has quite good contrast and there is no discrepancy between maximum contrast focus point and maximum sharpness focus point. Almost all my other fast vintage lenses show blooming at maximum sharpness. This one not.

As long as we are here, I also have a couple of excellent Bausch & Lomb Super Cinephor projection lenses, 133mm and 166mm f1.8. These are, I believe, double gauss, and also quite good. I usually shoot close, so I don't have examples at a distance, nor do I have the originals of these, but here are a couple of images from those. First two with the 5.25 inch and second two with the 6.5 inch

BTW the 135mm f1.5 sells for well over $1K in even mediocre condition, so you could sell yours and get a couple of really decent lenses for what you would get Wink

#1


#2



#3



#4


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for sharing these pictures.

I am not that fond of those taken with the 133mm due to rather busy and unpleasing bokeh but I definitely like the ones taken with the 166mm.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's a few from my copy of the 135/1.5 taken on a brighter day. The first two are wide open, and the third is around F8. (Not hand held - I'm not a masochist)

#1


#2


#3


I have four versions of the third party 135/1.8 lenses (do not have the Zeiss), but haven't shot them all on a day with good light. It's still summer here so maybe I should take the opportunity when I get home in a fortnight. (Side question: are Sigma lenses still third party if they now also make cameras? Zeiss do too.)

This shot is from a Weltblick/Mitake:



These next two are from a Polaris, this lens actually arrived with a damaged element which then cracked. I found a Samigon version of the same lens which I haven't tested wide open yet.




The next two are from a different version of the Spiratone, actually the same as the Soligor version with 5 elements in 3 groups, as seen in this thread: http://forum.mflenses.com/raynox-polaris-135mm-f-1-8-t76153.html.
This is probably my favourite of them all.


#5


These last two are from the Soligor/Tokina 135 F2
#6


#7


I can't locate my samples from the Sigma 1.8 lens with the 77mm filter thread, and shamefully nor do I have any wide open samples with my only other 'fast' 135, the Vivitar S1 135/2.3


PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


So you have the first 4 lenses? Nice Smile.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2023 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
https://www.ebay.it/itm/144880887818?hash=item21bb92e80a:g:GL8AAOSwDIhjsKbe&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAoBJNRF6%2BSlu6G%2BnguTb2cpTNw7rVT95%2F02tTosO5sHbN%2B0lpgPHt9pUNzzFtpFJYiF6rM5qPEBYslvCWKJGiAR0dr6OhOAuHVN4GtiKzOvnGvGT%2FpTJ7vVCR16e1R2EjRvIFbKHlTPuPbVNnJDGD0SMYqevsxYi6eAs6vGP%2F0HF4ogAGT8GJ1gobewQattZJDrUHEQIhPokLwq4pw59Osfk%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR8y7xMSvYQ


PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2023 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The asking price is a bit optimistic.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2023 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm noticing that lens prices lately in many areas are rapidly approaching escape velocity. I've come to the conclusion that the few lenses on my want list (lucky it's not a need list) I may now never get to use. On the other hand, as a seller, even trying to move items at bargain prices is very difficult.

It seems the market is all focused on the same, well known, lenses at atmospheric prices, and the more mundane, common ones don't move at all.

Partly this may be a result of lens collection being an end in itself, as many budget priced lenses can also produce memorable images, and also partly due to the popularisation of certain items by various Youtube 'influencers'. On the second point, I now see sellers on ebay listing prisms for Edixa cameras at around $100, this price explosion for Edixa cameras came about after Mattieu Stern did a video about that brand. To be fair, they are very attractively styled, but not worth what they now sell for.

Going back to the point about mundane and common lenses not selling, this does mean that a person more focused on photography will be happy, perfectly usable (common) lenses may become even cheaper. At the same time lens collectors will smile as their collections gain value, but persons just entering that game may have to temper their enthusiasm.

For myself personally, this development means I'll probably buy a lot less in future, that might be a good thing.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2023 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The prices people pay for old point&shoot camera’s like the Yashica T5 are also insane.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2023 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alun Thomas wrote:
I'm noticing that lens prices lately in many areas are rapidly approaching escape velocity. I've come to the conclusion that the few lenses on my want list (lucky it's not a need list) I may now never get to use. On the other hand, as a seller, even trying to move items at bargain prices is very difficult.

It seems the market is all focused on the same, well known, lenses at atmospheric prices, and the more mundane, common ones don't move at all.

Partly this may be a result of lens collection being an end in itself, as many budget priced lenses can also produce memorable images, and also partly due to the popularisation of certain items by various Youtube 'influencers'. On the second point, I now see sellers on ebay listing prisms for Edixa cameras at around $100, this price explosion for Edixa cameras came about after Mattieu Stern did a video about that brand. To be fair, they are very attractively styled, but not worth what they now sell for.

Going back to the point about mundane and common lenses not selling, this does mean that a person more focused on photography will be happy, perfectly usable (common) lenses may become even cheaper. At the same time lens collectors will smile as their collections gain value, but persons just entering that game may have to temper their enthusiasm.

For myself personally, this development means I'll probably buy a lot less in future, that might be a good thing.


High asking prices doesn't necessarily mean that they will sell.

The affordability of photography with used MF lenses largely comes down to recognising the difference between what you want, vs. what you really need.
As you suggested, there is plenty very usable glass out there at very affordable prices.

Once you get into the realm of die-hard collectors wanting to "complete" their collection, there is no such concept as rare lenses
selling for "more than they are worth"; it then becomes much a matter of supply and demand at a very particular point in time
relating to the collector's personal circumstances.


Re. the OP's post:
Lucse wrote:
A few pictures of the lens itself:




Somewhat bemused they bothered with engraving the f/1.5 hyperfocal markings; not sure how much use those would be in practice... Wink


And re. the f/1.8 lenses:
Lucse wrote:


So you have the first 4 lenses? Nice Smile.


That triplet in the Soligor must have been a pain to set up and centre when cementing in the factory...!
Thin triplets are OK as they can be centered optically when cementing and then only mounted via the element
that is both edge-centered mechanically as well as optically, but getting a thick triplet like that mounted
centred as well as cemented optically centered...
(unless they were brave enough to edge-centre a thick triplet after cementing...)


PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2023 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RokkorDoctor wrote:




That triplet in the Soligor must have been a pain to set up and centre when cementing in the factory...!
Thin triplets are OK as they can be centered optically when cementing and then only mounted via the element
that is both edge-centered mechanically as well as optically, but getting a thick triplet like that mounted
centred as well as cemented optically centered...
(unless they were brave enough to edge-centre a thick triplet after cementing...)


Yes, but Carl Zeiss Jena routinely did that in the manufacture of the Zeiss Sonnar 180mm F2.8, which uses an especially thick triplet. Interestingly, I've never heard of a decentered Sonnar 180mm F2.8...


PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2023 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Yes, but Carl Zeiss Jena routinely did that in the manufacture of the Zeiss Sonnar 180mm F2.8, which uses an especially thick triplet. Interestingly, I've never heard of a decentered Sonnar 180mm F2.8...


It would be interesting to see how they mounted these thick triplets (both the Soligor 135/1.8 and Carl Zeiss Jena 180/2.8 ).
It looks like the CZJ may have been edge-ground after cementing of the triplet,
in which case a precision-machined recess and threaded retainer ring would suffice,
or the mount may have a centering facility...


PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2023 3:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Nikkor 105/2.5 Sonnar version has a similar cemented triplet on the second group. Never heard of any decentering problem on this lens.


From Nikon Historical Society Journal #41, Sep 1993 https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/03038/03038.pdf


PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2023 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
The Nikkor 105/2.5 Sonnar version has a similar cemented triplet on the second group. Never heard of any decentering problem on this lens.


From Nikon Historical Society Journal #41, Sep 1993 https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/03038/03038.pdf


That Nikkor looks like the large two elements would have been optically centred, cemented,
and then the doublet (or the oversize first element of the doublet) be edge-ground to align mechanical and optical centres of the doublet.
The bi-concave smaller element probably would have been cemented last after optical centring to the doublet.
In any case, the first doublet in that triplet would have required some post-cementing edge-grinding to align optical & mechanical centres
as the threaded retaining ring is pressing on the chamfered edge of the lens, not onto a convex optical surface.
Then finally the lot will simply mount into the precision-engineered mount, clamped onto the first doublet only.

Conventional bi-convex cemented doublets (and bi-convex single elements) are easier to deal with as they can often
be optically centred in the mount through mechanical means by compression on the two outer convex surfaces;
no edge-grinding required to align optical and mechanical centres.

The triplet in the Soligor I mentioned has an awkward shape that doesn't allow for that kind of mount;
it looks like the optical and mechanical centres of the entire triplet in the Soligor need to be aligned, hence more tricky...

But I never meant to steer this thread that far off-topic...
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1